October 02, 2017

Beginning Oct. 20, citizens and groups around the world will organize events to call for a world parliament. Here, Young European Federalists, who want to bring about a United States of Europe and a United States of the World, gather at their annual meeting earlier in September. (Tad Daley)

America first. Russia first. China first.

The United States of America puts American interests first. Just as every other nation in the world puts its own interests first. President Donald Trump was right about that in his first speech before the United Nations, on Sept. 19. Few world leaders have so nakedly expressed the essence of the Westphalian state system, established by treaty in 1648, and under which every human being dwells today.

“As president of the United States,” Trump said, “I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries, will always, and should always, put your countries first.” This is controversial? Every undergraduate learns this on the first day of International Relations 101. It is the first principle of the realpolitik practiced by Henry Kissinger, Winston Churchill and Otto von Bismarck.

Virtually every other American president has made the same point. President Barack Obama, expressing his conception of larger interests during his final speech before the United Nations in 2016, returned in the end to his own primary obligation—and that of his counterparts. “Sometimes I’m criticized in my own country for professing a belief in international norms and multilateral institutions. But I am convinced that in the long run, giving up some freedom of action — not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests, but binding ourselves to international rules over the long term — enhances our security. And I think that’s not just true for us.”

Similarly, at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, President George H.W. Bush—who didn’t even agree to show up until the last minute—declared, “I’m the president of the United States. I’m not the president of the world. And while I’m here, I’m going to do what best serves the interests of the American people.”

September 01, 2015

A lot of people these days are concerned with getting the money out of politics. That's an admirable goal, but it doesn't solve the problem that's built right into the American political system: a voting system in which the majority rules and there is no minority representation because the winner takes all. At every level the US is divided up into districts whether its state assembly and senatorial districts, US Congressional districts, San Diego city council districts or what have you. Citizens in a particular district can only vote for one candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins in that district.

Even states can be considered voting districts and in each state you can vote for two US Senators, just not at the same time. If there are candidates you like outside of your district, you have no democratic decision making process with which to vote for them. For example, I can't vote for Bernie Sanders for Senator because I'm not a resident of Vermont. Similarly, I can't vote for Elizabeth Warren because I'm not a citizen of Massachusetts. The US voting system on every level is archaic.

One of the characteristics of the districting system is that districts can be gerrymandered in such a way that the majority always wins in every district even though the total constituency contains a significant minority. In addition to all the ways Republicans have tried to suppress minority voting such as demanding ID, making voting as inconvenient as possible, intimidation and disinformation such as robo calls misinforming voters about election dates or polling places, majoriy rule within districts is a baked in the cake, structural method of suppressing minorities. It all starts with a system of dividing jurisdictions up into districts.

Let's take gerrymandering which is the attempt to set the boundaries of districts in such a way that the desired outcome of the election is manifested. Lawrence's theorem is that no matter how significant a minority there is in any political jurisdiction, the districts can be gerrymandered in such a way that the majority wins in every district. I'm sure political parties have algorithms and computer programs that produce the desired results.

Let's take an example. As a hypothetical, oversimplified case, lets say a jurisdiction, a city for example, consists of a white majority and a black minority. Let's say all the whites vote Republican and all the blacks vote Democratic. Since district boundaries are usually drawn by the party in power, a Republican administration can draw each district in such a way that it includes a minority of black voters and a majority of white voters even if all the blacks live in one part of the city and all the whites live in a different part.

However, California decides the boundaries of districts in a much fairer way:

Though the process varies from state to state, redistricting is usually a partisan endeavor. In most cases, a state’s district lines--for both state legislative and congressional districts--are redrawn by the state legislature, and the majority party controls the process. [Districts are redrawn every ten years after the census is taken.] Some states require bi-partisan or non-partisan commissions to oversee the line-drawing. However, the state governor and majority party leaders often control who is appointed to these commissions. At the local level, city council presidents and/or council members usually oversee the redistricting process.

Some states are moving toward involving citizens in the redistricting process and creating truly independent redistricting commissions. In 2008, California voters passed Proposition 11, a referendum establishing an independent redistricting commission made up of citizens. This commission will draw state legislative districts--though not congressional districts--for the 2012 elections.

However, California's progressivity in this regard is not true of most other states especially southern states with large minority (black) populations. They just gerrymander away with the result that white Republican politicians stay in power year after year with no or very little actual minority participation in governing. No wonder that minorities don't bother to vote.

This is the way that white Republicans dominate politics in southern states even though those states contain significant black minorities. Then the way our majority rule, winner-take-all system of voting works is that one member is elected from each district. Each voter can vote for one and only one candidate, and one and only one candidate wins. As an example, let's say there are three candidates running for office in a particular district - A, B and C and there are N voters. 51% of the voters are white Republicans who vote for candidate A; 49% of the voters are black Democrats who vote for candidate C. No one votes for B. Obviously, A wins and the minority that voted for C are entirely left out of the governing process. Now imagine a voting system in which all voters rank order the candidates.

Then, in our highly simplified example, we find that 51% prefer A to B and B to C and 49% prefer C to B and B to A. If the voters vote approval style, they would give 1 vote to their first place choice and one vote to their second place choice. When the votes are tallied, A would have .51N votes, B would have N votes and C would have .49N votes. The clear winner then would be B since all voters have B as their second place choice. B would win the election, but, more importantly, B would represent both the majority and the minority. Instead of winner take all, a compromise candidate who was acceptable to all voters would be chosen.

Instead of the single member district system, a far better way of deciding political elections would be to have multi-member districts and use proportional representation, a system that guarantees that minority parties are represented in proportion to their support in the voting population. For example, a city could just be composed of one super district and voters could rank all the candidates. The beauty of this method is that voters get to cast a vote on the composition of the entire city council and not just on the candidates running in their district. The elected city council members would more accurately reflect the entire voting population not just the majority. Thus democracy has been augmented.

Many countries elect their parliaments by proportional representationincluding Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Mexico, Russia, New Zealand and many others. The entire European Union elects its members in this way:

The first week of June should see 500 million EU citizens exercise their right to vote for Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). The EU does not have a single electoral law for these elections. Many details are decided at a national level, but a basic set of rules has been established in 1999: MEPs must be elected on the basis of proportional representation, the threshold must not exceed 5%, and the electoral area may be subdivided in constituencies if this will not generally affect the proportional nature of the voting system.

Proportional representation allows for the election of many more women and minorities than does the American system. For example, 40% of Sweden's parliament are women. In Norway it's 39%; it's 33% in Finland and Denmark vs 12% in the US. There is also greater voter turnout since the voters have more choices. Many don't bother to vote in the US because they know the majority that does not represent their interests will win in the winner-take-all US system so what's the use?

The American system of majority rule and single member districts effectively eliminates third party candidates. In fact third party candidates end up just taking votes away from the party that they are closest to in political philosophy. They become spoilers as Ross Perot was in 1992 when he took enough votes away from George H W Bush that the election went to Bill Clinton. Considering the fact that, if he wasn't in the race, most Perot voters would have voted for Bush, Perot didn't do Republicans any favors.

The same thing happened in 2000 when Ralph Nader ran to the left of Al Gore and took enough Democratic votes away from him that George W Bush won the election with disastrous consequences in that, if Gore had won, there would have been no lying the US into the Iraq war which destabilized the whole middle East.

If proportional representation were used to elect US Senators and Congressmen, Green Party and Peace and Freedom Party candidates as well as those of other minority parties would stand a chance of being elected and would be able to make their values manifest at the national level in terms of actual governing. As it is Greens and others don't stand a chance at the state or the national level because of majority rule within single member districts.

Proportional representation (PR) voting systems are used by most of the world's established democracies. Under PR, representatives are elected from multi-seat districts in proportion to the number of votes received. PR assures that political parties or candidates will have the percent of legislative seats that reflects their public support. A party or candidate need not come in first to win seats.

In contrast, in the United States the "winner-take-all" single seat districts determine that votes going to a losing candidate are wasted, even if that candidate garners 49.9% of the vote. This leaves significant blocs of voters unrepresented. Voters sense this, and so often do not vote for a candidate they like, but rather the one who realistically stands the best chance of winning -- the "lesser of two evils."

An advantage of proportional representation is greater voter turn-out (typically 70-90%) because there are more choices for voters - third, fourth, fifth parties and more, from diverse perspectives, including more women and minorities elected.

The US, compared to European countries which are much older, has the oldest Constitution because the older countries have updated their Constitutions since the US' was originally implemented. The US could rewrite its Constitution too to reflect more modern political science thinking, but prevailing sentiments are that it is written in stone and cannot be changed. It is to be taken literally much as the Bible is in some circles, and nothing newer under the sun stands a chance of replacing it.

May 05, 2012

I greatly admire Robert Reich’s tireless energy and knowledge to explain in simple, straight language – to Americans of all colors, convictions, and class – what is truly happening to the U.S. economy and main-stream America. Namely, Social Darwinist inequality is at the heart of the system calling for reduction of the social net, forcing average Americans to rely on their own resources in a competitive environment where the fittest will survive – and the rest will get what they deserve for their lack of work ethic initiative and responsibility.

This ultra-conservative agenda perversely promotes primacy of the market economy over all else – “Reagan’s casual wisdom that “government is the problem not the solution.” This has resulted in Paul Ryan-type social-economic policies that have been driving many working class people to the edge of economic ruin. It has fostered a fertile ground for ultra right political and media pundit demagogues who operate at a demagogic intensity unheard of in Europe … where multiparty coalition consensus systems are generally far more reflective and less doctrinaire.

However, I must take issue with Dr. Reich’s over-generalization that “demagoguesare loose in Europe” (and the U.S), concluding that “In Europe,fringe parties on the left and right are gaining ground”… also suggesting that fringe parties are led by demagogues. First, what exactly is meant by fringe parties? European multi-party proportional representation (PR) government systems, with the Netherlands as an archetypal example, form the very basis of European “social democracies.” Such systems check extremist agendas and effectively marginalized demagogues. Such systems generate a broader competition of ideas where ultimately more balanced and progressive ideas often emerge.

All parties are treated with respect since the number of seats won in the Parliament (House of Representatives comprising 150 seats and 76 being necessary for a majority, i.e., to form a viable coalition government. ) is proportionate to the number of votes received. A party that receives 30% of the votes gets 30% of the seats. There are no electoral districts. Proportional representation (PR) systems tend to produce a proliferation of parties, while single member electoral districts stimulate a two-party system. PR allows small parties to be represented in Parliament which is considered to be a GOOD THING! Such systems facilitate legislative balance, fairness, and alertness to real life happenings, problems, needs in a typical pluralistic society having a uniquely ingrained European national cultural heritage .

As already noted, an exceptionally democratic feature of coalition systems I’ve observed, after 30 years living /working in Europe, is that they insure inclusive legislative policy-making and effectively marginalize “demagogues” from exercising undue influence. I´m referring to fact that in the Dutch Parliamentary government, the Cabinet formation consists of 12 Ministers and 8 Junior Ministers who are divided equally among the coalition members, regardless of their respective size. In other words, the current minority coalition government is comprised of the conservative VVD party with 31 seats and the centrist CDA party with 12 seats. BUT, each of these ruling parties receives 6 Ministers and 4 Junior Ministers!

The Dutch government fell because Geert Wilders´ far right PVV Freedom Party with 21 seats, as a non-coalition member, did not agree with the center-right minority coalition government´s budget plan based on a EU 3% of GDP deficit level in 2013. For the hard-core U.S. conservative Republicans or Democratic liberals, it may seem incomprehensible that Dutch coalition members and non-members do not necessarily blindly follow the party line as happens in America. For example, Geert Wilders far right PVV party is leap years philosophically different than our far right conservative Tea Party. On one hand, he´s against severe budget cuts in welfare, health, unemployment benefits, and opposes any decrease in the purchasing power of pensioners and lower income earners. On the other hand, he wants to scrap the euro, return to the guilder, stop all non-Western immigration including from Eastern EU member countries, and drastically diminish the power of Brussels.

Does this make Wilders a wild demagogue leading a fringe party with 14% of 150 Parliamentary seats, all achieved in less than two years? I think NOT! Is Wilders a team player willing and able to make the necessary coalition compromises in the country’s interest at a most serious economic time? I think NOT! Will some parts of Wilders´ social thinking – and that of the SP socialist party or PvdA labor party – be eventually incorporated in a final budget plan? I think, YES!

A culture of give and take, compromise, merger of the best policy initiatives under multi-party coalition governance systems – where no one party ever secures an overall majority of votes – is a much understated strength and support for consensus democracy in mature EU countries. Of course, another giant plus is the fact that European political representatives and processes are not bought by special interest money.

The U.S. all right or all left purist governing paradigm is avoided. This is reflected in the recently agreed budget plan of the newly formed 5-party interim coalition. Despite a sudden political move to left of center, the 5-party new plan agreed to in two days does NOT represent a complete rejection of austerity measures. ALL parties, including non-member coalition parties, fully recognize the need to balance the budget and implement fiscally responsible austerity measures. The ongoing debate until the September elections will focus on how far these measures should go, where the burden should fall, when should stimulus measures be activated.

In the final analysis, multi-party systems require a precise coordination of coalition strategies, programs, personnel choices that give confidence and a sense of reliability to the vast majority of voters. Assumptions about the goals coalition parties pursue and rules of the bargaining process determine the disintegration or success of multiparty proportional representation systems. On balance, however, effectivePR coalition systems have NOT been an easy playing fieldfor demagogues in their actions as members of traditional, new or rising fringe parties.

To further illustrate the check and balance features of coalition systems, it would seem to be certain political suicide, if not an outright impossibility, that a far right new Dutch until late rising strongly but now falling conservative party led by Geert Wilders, a far left new Dutch risingsocialist party led by Emile Roemer, and a far left French traditionalistsocialist party led by Francois Hollande (now challenging Sarkozy) have almost as much in common as they have at odds with each other … a concurrence of views unimaginable between Democrats and Republicans. None of these party leaders, or any others I can mention, are fringe party demagogues.

All three are against the timing of the EU 3% deficit rule. All three are vehemently opposed to deep budget cuts that reduce purchasing power of the elderly and lower income groups. All three want to set measures to increase economic growth. All three have a deep distrust of globalization. Two argue for a drastic cut back in immigration, especially from Islamic lands – an exception being the Dutch SP socialist party which is more multicultural minded, but has also been critical of immigration policy as a capitalist tactic to drive down wages.

SUMMARY

Lately in Europe, there has been a clear trend of views shifting to left of center in even the fiscally austere countries. Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Germany to a smaller extent are beginning to question the certified wisdom of continuing strict economic austerity programs. New coalitions are forming to force a democratic reassessment of this policy. Some coalition partners want to maintain a reputation for fiscal discipline. Some want a different mix of cuts and tax increases and decreases. Some, like the PVV, SP and PvdA, want a greater emphasis on growth measures.

This is the profoundly unique and healthy contribution of the multiparty governing process in Europe, despite its tendency to political stalemate and lengthy debate. It spurs a natural questioning of assumptions, more sharing of ideas, and realigning of policies to deal fairly, humanly, pragmatically with continuing economic stagnation and high debt situation …while simultaneously tempering the casino game of government ad hoc printing of money to solve all problems and keeping the lid on irresponsible acceleration of national and household debt levels.

In contrast, this is what I don’t see happening in the our broken government system. Absent completely is the European style of questioning sacred, purist ideologically driven dogma; civilly engaging other ideas; striving to adapt, share, merge the best of policy initiatives. If ever there is a healthy playing field for demagogues, it’s the black and white thinking of left vs.right and “winner-takes-all” U.S. political system … that class divides people, fosters constant two-party warfare, and destroys any chance of constructive, balanced policy making in the interest of ALL citizens.

If ever there’s a place where “demagogues are running loose” in force, it’s in the good old USA.